Father's Rights (Children)

[Tempra]

Handing over a used condom to a friend is a voluntary action that can reasonably lead to pregnancy. He knew he was putting his baby making love seed into a field where it might take root. I don't think that is paternity laws gone crazy, I think that's a guy who made a bad call, but who had enough information to make a better one.

They other case is harder because I don't know enough about it. Did the woman admit to doing this or is it just an accusation? If true I think that it's good that he is suing her and I hope he wins. That's a 1 in a billion chance of that happening if it happened as he said. He got the unlucky number.

I believe this is the third time I have said that I agree with child support in these instances. What more do you want?

[mormont]

I know that my personal circumstances are fairly unique in scope, but definitely not unique in how common such problems are. It seems like even if we stop short of a contract, there must be some way we can build in controls to make sure the money is going to the right things (maybe have percentages of the entitlement directly deposited into accounts that can be monitored by both parents). If the mother wants expensive dresses and toys, she can use her own money. No one in the thread seems to disagree with the fact that child support is money that is reserved to provide for the child, so why can't we place legally enforceable restrictions on it to be absolutely certain it is fulfilling its intent?

Probably there are some ways. But those ways are going to have all sorts of problems. The system is going to have to be fairly bureaucratic and cumbersome: particularly if, as I said, there are disputes over how much should be spent on what. Say the resident parent thinks that the children's current housing is inadequate, and the non-resident parent does not, for example: he/she may believe this is an excuse for the other person to get a better house for themselves out of the deal. Are you going to send that to arbitration, or have some sort of third-party monitoring?

Then there's the issue where a former partner could use this monitoring in petty ways, to get revenge or try to control the other person. And there's issues about the fungibility of money, particularly where there is a new partner in the resident parent's life. Tracing what is spent on the child isn't easy. Particularly if there are other children or step-children in the resident parent's household. How do you show that the food money was spent on your kid?

What makes this difficult is the more 'regular' cases, not the cases where the non-resident parent is buying expensive things they couldn't afford with the child support. Those cases, ideally (and yes I know it's not an ideal world) should be dealt with by other means. For example, the non-resident parent should be able to pursue custody based on the financial recklessness of the other parent.

Just MHO, mind you.

[Tempra]

So your assuming that the noncustodial parent is the father as a default. Okay since you have picked the pronoun lets have at it.

I'm not sure what your problem with this is. While the parents where together they made choices about what to have their child involved in. If the parents didn't want to have their child do horse back ridding or ice skating or what ever they didn't. Once they divorce the parents might still choose not to participate in those activities.

However the primary caregiver now has to make more single choices, deal with more responsibility, and make a more unilateral discussion about what benefits the child. The child doesn't get to demand "I want a pony and you can afford one so you have to give it to me." As when the child lived with both parents it's still at it's caregivers call what resources would best benefit it.

That's why more oversight and more visitations makes more sense then keeping a child's resources next to the poverty line.

It is a fair assumption that in most cases, the non-custodial parent is the dad.

My problem, as stated a few times already, by me and now another person, is that a non-custodial parent may be obligated by law to pay more than a custodial parent. How do you not see the glaring inconsistency?

Also, there will not be increased oversight. Courts do not want to micromanage the financial decisions of parents. It is a waste of time and would cause the courts to pry into personal matters. Seriously, unless the mom is snorting the kid's money away, courts will not get involved.

[Lord O' Bones]

My problem, as stated a few times already, by me and now another person, is that a non-custodial parent may be obligated by law to pay more than a custodial parent. How do you not see the glaring inconsistency?

What is the custodial parents time worth?

[Kalbear]

My problem, as stated a few times already, by me and now another person, is that a non-custodial parent may be obligated by law to pay more than a custodial parent. How do you not see the glaring inconsistency?

How is this inconsistent? The custody of the parent isn't determined by financial ability alone, and the rule allows for a reasonable amount of support from both parents.

[Tempra]

What is the custodial parents time worth?

Depends on how much income the non-custodial parent makes.

Although, to a certain extent, this is covered by alimony. If a mother has to stay home with her kids and is unable to work, she may receive more alimony.

[Angalin]

i said 'i don't think anybody would object to supporting their child which was born in wedlock or commited relationship'

what i meant was 'i don't think anybody 'here' would object to supporting their child which was born in wedlock or commited relationship'

just re read post and realised i needed to clarrify that. though i am aware of numerous situations where both sexes have used children to hurt their formally loving partners, both financially and emotionally (my childhood included) so perhaps i am giving the board too much credit. i dont see why people here should or would be any better than the general populace.

Thanks for clarifying, bfc.

As for one parent dictating to another parent how the support money is spent: what if the support-paying parent, X, wants all the food to be organic, but the other parent, Y, doesn't see the point? What if X wants the kid to play hockey instead of basketball while Y is backing up the basketball-loving kid, and X earmarks support money to be used for hockey only? People get incredibly petty about this stuff. While I understand that Tinydigit's situation was unacceptable, giving one parent the right to look at the other parent's use of support money would only encourage that pettiness.

[Lord O' Bones]

Depends on how much income the non-custodial parent makes.

Although, to a certain extent, this is covered by alimony. If a mother has to stay home with her kids and is unable to work, she may receive more alimony.

Only if there was a marriage and subsequent divorce, no?

[Tempra]

How is this inconsistent? The custody of the parent isn't determined by financial ability alone, and the rule allows for a reasonable amount of support from both parents.

Sorry, I meant in a normal two parent relationship, or even in a single parent situation where the court isn't requiring child support. Society does not require parents to provide a certain level of lifestyle based on the parent's income, except when a non-custodial parent is hit with a child support order.

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

Thanks for clarifying, bfc.

As for one parent dictating to another parent how the support money is spent: what if the support-paying parent, X, wants all the food to be organic, but the other parent, Y, doesn't see the point? What if X wants the kid to play hockey instead of basketball while Y is backing up the basketball-loving kid, and X earmarks support money to be used for hockey only? People get incredibly petty about this stuff. While I understand that Tinydigit's situation was unacceptable, giving one parent the right to look at the other parent's use of support money would only encourage that pettiness.

Exactly! Having been through this, I have a serious problem with the other parent being able to question every decision you make.

[Tempra]

Only if there was a marriage and subsequent divorce, no?

True. So, I imagine you view the custodial parent's time as "priceless?" And it should scale up indefinitely based on the non-custodial parents income?

[Lord O' Bones]

True. So, I imagine you view the custodial parent's time as "priceless?" And it should scale up indefinitely based on the non-custodial parents income?

Negative. It should have a concrete price, yet still resulting in a disparity.

[Kalbear]

Sorry, I meant in a normal two parent relationship, or even in a single parent situation where the court isn't requiring child support. Society does not require parents to provide a certain level of lifestyle based on the parent's income, except when a non-custodial parent is hit with a child support order.

it probably should, but even barring that this means that the kid is going to not be stiffed because they're with separated parents. Or at least it does in theory.

It's not perfect, but it's quite a bit better than the alternative.

[Tempra]

it probably should, but even barring that this means that the kid is going to not be stiffed because they're with separated parents. Or at least it does in theory.

It's not perfect, but it's quite a bit better than the alternative.

I am not advocating kids getting stiffed, but I do think there should be a cap. Where exactly that cap should be put, and I think I suggested a cap too low in a prior post, could be decided by someone wiser. But do you honestly believe that some kids should receive amounts well in excess of the average family income in the case of a wealthy parent?

[Kalbear]

I am not advocating kids getting stiffed, but I do think there should be a cap. Where exactly that cap should be put, and I think I suggested a cap too low in a prior post, could be decided by someone wiser. But do you honestly believe that some kids should receive amounts well in excess of the average family income in the case of a wealthy parent?

There is a cap.

And yes, I think that it is reasonable to give a child at least the chance at a more affluent life if one of the parents has that means. I think it's hugely selfish to refuse that, and I think that doing anything else causes extreme tension and allows the wealthy parent to be the 'good' one because of that massive inequity.

[Tinydigit]

Exactly! Having been through this, I have a serious problem with the other parent being able to question every decision you make.

With the apportioned allotment system, the other parent only needs to be concerned about whatever percentage goes towards incidentals. If 50 percent is subsidizing housing and 25 percent is being distributed as food stamps, then they don’t need to worry about it. I would put controls to prevent abuse from the child support-paying parent as well. They would need to demonstrate to a court or appropriate social agency, that the needs of the child are not being met.

Some people here are quibbling about letting the circumstances of an extreme case dictate policy for the masses, then how can it be alright to allow a handful of really contentious and petty cases of disagreement between parents scuttle an apportioned allotment system for the majority of cases where the non-custodial parent just wants to cut a check, know it is fulfilling its intended purpose, and maybe take them for summer vacation?

We should actively work to remove as much of whatever negativity surrounds each individual case as much as possible by applying fair standards, across the board, that are designed to protect the child. If the parents can't get along, fuck them. At least the person who is entitled to that money is reaping the rewards.

ETA: Typos gallore

[Tempra]

There is a cap.

And yes, I think that it is reasonable to give a child at least the chance at a more affluent life if one of the parents has that means. I think it's hugely selfish to refuse that, and I think that doing anything else causes extreme tension and allows the wealthy parent to be the 'good' one because of that massive inequity.

In Virginia, there is a % of income cap based on parental income. There is not a dollar cap.

I think it reasonable and desirable for a wealthy parent to provide his child with a better standard of living, but it should not be required by law.

Why should society require a non-custodial parent to provide his child with a higher standard of living, then we require a married couple to provide for their child?

[Kalbear]

Why should society require a non-custodial parent to provide his child with a higher standard of living, then we require a married couple to provide for their child?

Because in the case of separation there is a very explicit desire from the non-custodial parent to enact revenge on the custodial one which ends up fucking over the kid. This ensures the kid at least has a chance at those resources that would likely end up being denied to the kid more often than not.

Plus the law assumes that the two parents' income would naturally be allocated on some level towards the kids, as this is what most people do. It's the common case. Yes, the law doesn't require that your parents support you in the way that they're supported, but that's the norm.

[Tempra]

Because in the case of separation there is a very explicit desire from the non-custodial parent to enact revenge on the custodial one which ends up fucking over the kid. This ensures the kid at least has a chance at those resources that would likely end up being denied to the kid more often than not.

That is why we have child support laws, which I favor. My only desired change is capping the amount, in dollars, at a certain point.

Plus the law assumes that the two parents' income would naturally be allocated on some level towards the kids, as this is what most people do. It's the common case. Yes, the law doesn't require that your parents support you in the way that they're supported, but that's the norm.

And that wouldn't change.

[Kalbear]

I think you should take it up with the state of Virginia then. Lots of other states have caps on child support. That being said, child support isn't assigned by a robot; if someone was making $50 mil a month a judge isn't going to hand the custodial parent 25% of that just because. There's a human element involved.

I don't honestly know what you're arguing with me for; this is a state by state issue and most of the time a case-by-case issue.